Table 4.
Reasons why multidisciplinary tumour conference recommendations were not followed
| Patient-related reasons | Physician-related reasons | Otherc | Totalb n (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient did not follow up | Patient deteriorated | Patient preference | Patient not a candidate | Treating physician preferred alternative | |||
| Child–Pugh class A, n | 14 | 4 | 6 | 20 | 24 | 2 | 70 (48.3%) |
| Child–Pugh class B, n | 5 | 4 | 3 | 12 | 12 | 3 | 39 (26.9%) |
| Child–Pugh class C, n | 4 | 10 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 34 (23.4%) |
| Child–Pugh class unknown, n | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (1.4%) |
| Totala, n (%) | 24 (16.6%) | 19 (13.1%) | 13 (9.0%) | 37 (25.5%) | 43 (29.7%) | 9 (6.2%) | 145 |
a
Percentage within reason recommendation not followed.
b
Percentage within Child–Pugh class.
c
Chart review does not show a clear reason why the recommendation was not followed.